Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Sushila Devi Widow Of Amrit Rai ... vs The State Of Haryana on 30 June, 2014
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.10954 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of decision:30.06.2014
Smt. Sushila Devi widow of Amrit Rai Khattar ... Petitioner
versus
The State of Haryana, through Secretary to Government, Haryana
Revenue Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr.Chater Bhuj Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Parshad, DAG, Haryana.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.
----
K.Kannan, J.
1. The writ petition is in relation to proceedings taken under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and for quashing of orders passed by the authorities under the Act in the manner of declaration of certain properties as falling within the surplus determined under the Act.
2. The Prescribed Authority passed an order on 03.09.1980 declaring an area measuring 75 kanals 4 marlas of land situate in Village Naurangpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon as surplus. The Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10954 of 1989 (O&M) -2- point of contest by the landowner was that although an extent of 48 kanals 7 marlas of land had been granted exemption, tubewell situate in the said land had been included as falling within the surplus area. The further grievance was the petitioner had sold an item of property on 24.12.1972 and the property covered under the said sale had also been wrongly included.
3. The reason for including the tubewell within the surplus pool was that when a property had been sold through an agreement dated 13.09.1971 that culminated in the sale dated 15.05.1972, there had been no reference to the tubewell.
4. In my view, the authorities that excluded the property sold on 15.05.1972 of an extent of 48 kanals 7 marlas were bound to exclude the tubewell also. The facility is invariably to go along with the land and it is not possible to exclude merely the tubewell only because the sale agreement did not make reference to it. It has been borne out on records that the borewell had been installed in Ravi 1969 and the khasra girdawari bore evidence for the same. Actually the sale deed does makes reference to the existence of the tubewell and only in the agreement, there has been no reference.
5. The counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh Versus State of U.P. and others-AIR 1981 Supreme Court 636. It was the decision rendered under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The court was Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10954 of 1989 (O&M) -3- considering the meaning of "good faith" and held that it need not be necessary to construe the sale for personal necessity. The case in point for sale by the landowner who was brigadier in army and who had sold the land for the purpose of raising money for construction of his own house, the court held that such a transfer could not be ignored. Nothing has been brought on record to the necessity impinging on sale and to uphold the bona fides. The interpretation of Land Ceiling Act must be in such a way that any transaction of sale subsequent to the appointed day must be shown to have been made under the circumstances which would make possible an inference that the sale was not intended to reduce the extent of holding and evade the applicability of the provisions of the Act. The legislative intent of taking over the lands of landowners who held lands above the ceiling limit and for the distribution of the properties to landless and to certain pre-determined classes of persons must be given full effect as a constitutional obligation for economic redistribution of wealth.
6. I set aside the order only in so far as the tube well has been included in the surplus and direct exclusion of the said tubewell along the land which was exempt.
7. As regards the sale dated 03.04.1978, the authorities were justified in refusing to give credence to the bonafides of the sale particularly in view of the fact that it was long after the Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.10954 of 1989 (O&M) -4- appointed day. Any sale that is subsequent to the appointed day is legally suspect unless there are special circumstance that would show a compulsion for sale of the property and for invoking bona fides in favour of the landowner. The rejection of the plea by the authorities for granting exclusion in respect of the property sold was perfectly justified.
8. The writ petition is partly allowed in providing for an exclusion only as regards the tubewell.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.06.2014 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2014.06.30 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document